Understanding Semantic Coordination in Cognition

Abstract

Kit Fine (2007) outlines an account of semantic coordination, an account motivated by the role of semantic coordination in cognition. Actually, Fine outlines two accounts of semantic coordination, one in terms of co-reference and another in terms of synonymy. I argue, first, that Fine's two accounts are not equivalent, with one being logically stronger than the other, but second and more importantly, that neither account is correct. I outline an alternative account of semantic coordinationthe epistemic conception of semantic coordinationthat links semantic and epistemic aspects of cognition more directly. The most surprising result of my alternative account of semantic coordination is that semantic coordination is a relation that can hold between elements of thought and language of different semantic types. I close the paper by briefly outlining some applications of the idea that semantic coordination is a relation that can hold across semantic types.

Disagreement and Conceptual Understanding

“…For some explaining away of conceptual disagreement, see the first half of Williamson (2007). For a response to Williamson, see Balcerak-Jackson and Balcerak-Jackson (2012); Rattan and Wikforss (2015).…”

“…However, see also Burge (), Sainsbury (), Campbell (, ch. 5), Fine (, Introduction), Dickie and Rattan () and Rattan (manuscript). Burge and Fine's notions of content preservation and semantic coordination are also kindred to my ‘understanding‐based knowledge of co‐reference making immediate extensions of knowledge possible’.…”

Mates and the hierarchy

“…The notion we use here is the weakest notion. See alsoRattan (2019). 17 See, for example,Burge (1978, p. 126), which we discuss at greater length below.…”